Supreme Court justices signaled on Tuesday that they are reluctant to embrace a broad ruling finding a fundamental right to marriage for gays and lesbians across the United States.

As sign-waving demonstrators massed outside, the court completed more than an hour of oral argument on whether to let stand a California ban on same-sex marriage without indicating a clear path forward.

Swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy raised concerns about the court entering "uncharted waters" on an issue that divides the states.

Kennedy even raised the prospect of the court dismissing the case, a relatively unusual move that would leave intact a federal Appeals Court ruling that struck down the law, known as Proposition 8.

In a similar vein, Justice Samuel Alito also urged caution, noting that gay marriage as a concept is "newer than cellphones and the Internet."

None of the justices indicated support for the Obama administration's favored solution, which would strike down Proposition 8 and require the other eight states that already recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

Earlier in the argument, the justices probed lawyers on both sides on the technical issue of whether California opponents of gay marriage had a right to be heard in federal court.

Although there was no apparent consensus on that point, if the court were to find the proponents did not have standing it would not reach the merits and then the federal District Court ruling that struck down Proposition 8 would be left intact.

U.S. citizens in general do not have a right to sue to enforce laws they favor. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed lawyer Charles Cooper, who represents gay marriage opponents, on why his clients are any different as they seek to enforce Proposition 8.

First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing. That would vacate the Ninth Circuits decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8. Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it. Second, the Court may dismiss the case because of an inability to reach a majority. Justice Kennedy takes that view, and Justice Sotomayor indicated that she might join him. Others on the left may agree. That ruling would leave in place the Ninth Circuits decision. The upshot of either scenario is a modest step forward for gay rights advocates, but not a dramatic one.

In other words, the Court could find several avenues to avoid upholding California’s “Prop 8,” while also declining to explicitly strike it down. If the justices venture down either of these paths, then vote to strike down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act — which many people now anticipate — the issue of gay marriage would fall to the states. Former federal judge Michael McConnell, an esteemed conservative, sketched out this very scenario in the Wall Street Journal last week:

Even though the stage seems set for a momentous ruling by the court, the litigation actually offers the justices a golden opportunity to resolve these cases without setting a precedent either way, and to reaffirm the ideal of democratic, decentralized decision-making...If the court dismisses the Proposition 8 case on standing grounds and strikes DOMA down on federalism grounds, the combined effect would be to reaffirm America’s democratic, decentralized decision-making process without imposing an answerone way or the otherto the same-sex marriage question. By taking such a path, the court would be spared from imposing a single nationwide definition of marriage as a matter of constitutional law, and from having to rule, for all time, that there is or is not a constitutional right to same-sex marriagea momentous step that some justices might be reluctant to take. It would leave the issue to the states, at least for the time being. This course might appeal to centrist justices like Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts and Stephen Breyerand perhaps could even command a unanimous court, which would have a welcome calming influence on the nation’s culture wars. Considerations of these sorts have long been part of the virtue of judicial modesty, too often undervalued by partisans on both sides. In this instance, modesty requires no more than that the justices follow the technicalities of the law.

If the voters of a state overwhelmingly pass a proposition, opponents of that proposition can oppose it and they have standing to go to a court where the judge has a conflict of interest but nonetheless overturns the vote of the people. Yet, if an elected official, say a state’s Attorney General, refuses to do his/her job to support the result of the people’s vote, then the people themselves have no standing? Is that about right?

Why doesn't someone call for a constitutional convention to amend the constitution so that this can be resolved by vote of the people. The people have repeatedly voted against same sex marriage and the courts go through all sorts of contortions to overturn the election based on the constitution. Now is the time to have the people speak.

Since Roe v Wade many decent people has reasoned that the Supreme Court and the constitution itself have lost much of their legitimacy. How can you respect an institution that by its action is responsible for the killing of fort million human lives? If this horrific killing is in fact “constitutional” then how can decent people of conscience take an oath to “uphold and defend”? If this damaged institution states that the decadence of gay marriage is a “constitutional right” its standing will decline even further. Woe to the Constitution.

I find that interesting in that they had no such problem with Roe v Wade.

I think the current justices (none of whom were on the Court when Roe was decided) realize what a mess the Court made in that case. Had the court not ruled in Roe v. Wade, abortion would today be legal in some states, illegal in others, and there would be a lot less fighting over the issue.

I dont recognize this country anymore either..I live in Los Angeles so unfortunately I have to live with the media kissing the asses of gays..its sickening..and I wouldnt be surprised if the Supreme Court allows homos to marry..it will be the same as Obamacare, that is how they will rule, with John Roberts ruling in favor of the fruits..this is all the master plan of the left, first take away our right to bear arms, than take away the definition of marriage..its truly sick

Ive had to deal with the way California is..but I dont wish California on anyone else, but if the Supreme Court rules the way I think they will everyone will have to suffer the way I have had to suffer in this state..the media love fest here for gay marriage is SICKENING but not surprising, most of the local news reporters here are gay as a fruit basket..next up will be allowing fruitcakes to adopt children..that will leave us with a future generation of molested kids who think being homo is A OK

I could, if things get really really bad(Yeah its possible for things to get worse here) I might leave. My whole family is here, I grew up in this state(Born and raised) unfortunately its not the same state I once loved. California is a beautiful state with some really wonderful people living in it, but we are in the minority now and its just a real shame..Ronald Reagan loved this state and he wouldnt recognize it anymore

sounds good though have you seen many college kids up in Boston an dother big cities lately?

WOW the women are more manly than the supposedly guys and the guys are more girlie than most women.

Hell I don;t know what happened to many early 20’s and to high school age boys but even my sons tell me that many are just little fairies who won;t get dirty, never had a fight, cry, wear spandex and helmets to ride their bicycle to the next door neighbor and as my wife tells me ,.

he last thing she wants to see is grown men wearing tight spandex.

Imagine sticking these kind of guys in your time machine and send them back to when all men were real men LOL EEK

Just asked my oldest boy about skinny jeans etc and he esaid yes there are a few boys who wear them and they look weird and girlie.
He said Emo’;s are the oens who cut themselves and I;ve just todl him you know it;s wrogn right, that they are totally screwed up and he said he knew that and neevr talks to them.
He did just tell me that most of the school avoids these freaks and most don;t say anything to them but do give tem dirty looks and ignore them .

He said there is only one boy at the high school and no one likes him, he moved down ehre from Il last year and he hates it down here and wants to go back north to his pals.
He keeps crying hownpeople won;t accept him and yes of course there is a handful of girls who feel sorry for him.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.